Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Fly Eyes Inspire Better Video Cameras

Evolutionists are always pointing out that evolution is a lousy process. Our aching backs, useless wisdom teeth, and backward wiring in our retinas are, they say, consequences of evolution's ineptitude. It is hardly the sort of thing that a designer would want to copy. Would you want to fly on an aircraft if its design was inspired by such a haphazard process? Of course not. And who can argue with the evolutionist’s logic. If life is the result of the random interplay of the laws of thermodynamics, motion, electromagnetism, gravity and so forth, then we would hardly expect anything that works very well, if at all. But if all this is true, then what about nature’s dazzling designs? If evolution is a lousy designer, then what can we say about biology’s many intricacies? In fact biology’s designs are not only incredibly complex (so much so we’re still trying to figure them out), they often are quite useful.

Biology is yielding a wealth of designs and structures that find a variety of practical applications. In today's engineering fields there is an emphasis on biologically-inspired designs. Courses, textbooks and conferences increasingly look to biology for design ideas and synergies.

Military researchers, for instance, have been on to this for years. If the bat's biosonar can perform ranging measurements several times more accurately than our best military equipment, then let's find out how they do it. Likewise, if bats can perform synthetic aperture imaging in a few seconds and simultaneously solve complex geometrical equations to optimally intercept their prey, then it is no surprise that the military is interested.

In fact biology offers a wealth of such high-tech productions. Consider the fly's advanced image processing capabilities. As one writer explained, the "pesky fly's eyes hold an important blueprint for creating better video cameras, military target-detection systems, and surveillance equipment." The potential applications are significant and include commercial (e.g., cameras and video cameras), security (e.g., improved detection of movements in shadows), and military (e.g., improved target detection and tracking).

Evolutionists say that evolution created the many biological marvels such as the bat's biosonar and the fly's vision system. They say that a lousy, undirected and haphazard process just happened to outwit the best scientists and engineers in the world—time and time again. According to Darwinists, biological structures with unknown function are useless and an obvious sign of an inept, undirected process. But biological structures with awesome designs are, on the other hand, also supposed to be the product of undirected biological change, such as mutations.

Claiming that the bat's biosonar or the fly's vision system is the result of evolution is more speculation than explanation. In fact, that is putting is nicely. How silly it would be to unequivocally claim that the most advanced, complex designs must have arisen as a consequence undirected biological change. A sequence of mutations just happened to produce the most accurate sonar system known to humanity.

This is so silly, in fact, that Darwinists usually refrain from saying this. It is their theory, but more often than not Darwinists use the less ridiculous-sounding Lamarckian language. The designs, they say, arose as a consequence of selection pressure. This explanation violates their own principle that biological change must not be initiated or crafted in response to need. According to evolution, biological change must be undirected. Selection must play a role only after the biological change occurs, not before.

Nor is gradualism a remedy to the problem. Construction of biosonar and advanced image processing, one undirected mutation at a time, is no better than all at once. In both cases the undirected biological change must hit upon the same phenomenal design. Gradualism, however, has the added burden that there must exist a very long sequence of finely graded useful intermediates, leading to the final design. We know of no such sequence, but we must believe it exists. All very amazing for such a lousy process.

Where's: you have got to be kidding. This is one of your weakest arguments yet!

Wrong.

Where's: actually no, sorry, it's not one of your weakest. They are all equally weak.

Right!

Cornelius Hunter: Evolutionists are always pointing out that evolution is a lousy process.

Strawman. Evolutionists point to evolutionary processes, not "lousy processes". Evolution is very adept at optimization, but has to work with incremental adaptations of what is at hand and within whatever environment the population finds itself in.

Cornelius Hunter: If life is the result of the random interplay of the laws of thermodynamics, motion, electromagnetism, gravity and so forth, then we would hardly expect anything that works very well, if at all.

Well, no. That's your strawman.

Cornelius Hunter: The designs, they say, arose as a consequence of selection pressure. This explanation violates their own principle that biological change must not be initiated or crafted in response to need. According to evolution, biological change must be undirected.

Undirected, like a river is undirected. Evolution is quite adept at optimizing along a selection gradient.

Detailed explanations don't seem to be necessary for evolutionists. Natural selection is the magical box that can do anything. It's dumbing down ideology of life is in conflict with what is actually found "under the hood" of creatures who possess astonishing complex features and functions.

Evolutionists and global warming "scientists" have a lot of explaining to do. Calling something "settled" science when there is so much controversy does not help. There is no substitute for actually providing evidence rather than shouting louder when observations appear to conflict with a theory.

Referring to evolution as sloppy and inept must make it easier to contrast with your supposed design.

2) "biological change must not be initiated or crafted in response to need. According to evolution, biological change must be undirected."

Whoa there. We say the things that create genetic diversity, (e.g. random mutation) are generally undirected with respect to need, and where in the genome they 'hit'. BUT, why would the outcome of natural selection, acting on that genetic diversity be random? It is a filter that can present elegant solutions to the problem-given enough diversity to act on. We see this clearly in directed evolution experiments, where novel enzymes can be selected from a random genetic pool. In nature, the endgame--the change in phenotype--is, of course, responsive to environment!

Neal- "Detailed explanations don't seem to be necessary for evolutionists."

What do you think scientific research is?

Take bats- Scientists have analyzed the molecular evolution of a key hearing gene: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20129037

A gene that lets them see in dim light http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20098620

I know you and Cornelius would like to believe evolution has no detail, and that we just declare evolution did it. This is very false, and you should perhaps think about the declaration and data your side has produced.

"There is no substitute for actually providing evidence"

The evolution-based evidence can be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ or any the links I post here. Where is the design based evidence?

What criteria did you use to detect design in the fly eye and bat echolocation? How does it distinguish that design from non-design? Provide references or calculations.

...and incidentally, eyes, and every other biologicalstructures are not "designs", they are structures.We only have "design" when some person studies thosestructures, creates a theory of some aspect of theiroperation, and applies that theory to manufacture anew device, or a new processing technque.

....and finally. The ultimate in copying biology forpurpose of manufacturing are genetic algorithms, whichuse the "haphazard" process of evolution to solveproblems. GA's have been used for decades for solvingpractical problems.

""There has not been enough time for all the diversity in all the species in the entire earth that would be needed...not even close."

Reference, calculation? Lemme guess-tornado in a junkyard?

Y'all are fond of bringing assertions to a debate. Yet, Dr. Hunter continues to claim it is faith that drives science. "

I am no scientist. I'm sure you know more about science than I do. Yet, when you look at the millions of different living organisms that exist and the immense complexity needed for one of those to get to the point of carrying on life, you realize that the time the earth has existed is simply not enough for such a diversity in life to come about.

Yet, when you look at the millions of different living organisms that exist and the immense complexity needed for one of those to get to the point of carrying on life, you realize that the time the earth has existed is simply not enough for such a diversity in life to come about.

Not everyone believed that earth was flat. There is a book that spoke of the circle or sphere of the earth and even that the earth hung upon nothing. This was, get this, thousands of years before "science" declared these things to be true!

"There is a book that spoke of the circle or sphere of the earth and even that the earth hung upon nothing."

Are you referring to the bible? It references what was already known at the time those books were written, not thousands of years in advance!

I'd guess you mean parts of Ishiah, which is written about 740-300 B.C. Even if you grant the translation of circle as sphere, the line is part of the Deutero-Isaiah, which is around the time the Greeks totally stopped referencing to the world as anything but round.

So, maybe the Bible did pick up on the scientific knowledge around time it was written. No atomic theory, germ theory, cells, or anything prescient there.

I was referring to ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Mesopotanians, etc.-like int the Epic of Gilgamesh or earliest Greek maps, which clearly believe in a flat earth. Way earlier. China holds a flat earth with round heavens much longer.

'Can you point out any inaccuracies or scientific errors in the Bible? I have yet to find any.'Filipe, you need to go back to the drawing board, you are saying some quite silly things here. The only confirmed evidence that has been found regarding anything in the bible is that which demonstrates it's irrelevance as a source of information on just about anything.

We're way off topic. Suffice to say, 'common sense' is not a scientific criterion, and would have led to little progress.

The Bible is not a scientific authority any more than the Epic of Gilgamesh is. However, its not a debate worth having to me. Each inaccuracy I point out will be met with-"but the ancient Hebrews used the word this way, or that is a miracle, or that is a metaphor."

So instead, I'll turn to authorities, and how THEY have interpreted these verses:

Would the Church ban any reference to the mobility of the Earth or the immobility of the Sun, or that attempted to reconcile these assertions with Scripture, if there was not basis in 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, and Ecclesiastes 1:5.

Here is an interpretation of Biblical cosmology, from a source that knows their Hebrew:

"The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse."

there is nothing evidentially scientific in the bible so your question is pointless.

If you are asking for an example of confirmed evidence demonstrating the fallacious foundation of your bible, the list is innumerable and for you to pretend you aren't already well aware of these things is disingenuous.

The Bible uses the term "Rokiya" which comes from the word "Roka" which means something which is stretched. This is does not sound like a solid vault. It does put me in mind of the four dimensional warping (stretching) if space called for by the General Theory of Relativity. The Tlaumd also says that the world was round, and that the stars are bigger than the Earth. What the ancient Hebrews actually believed is not all that simple.

'Yeah, good point. Evolution really does outsmart us over and over, producing engineering marvels. Why not?' - ah, finally, you're recognizing that only science has, does and will provide all the answers and that creation/ID is a non-evidential fallacy. Yes, the surprises and astonishing, amazing discoveries will continue to come, but so will the answers that science provides.(gee I hope no-one detected any tone of irony there)

Moving away from the bible, since you are correct, we could endlessly debate it, when Cornelius says "Evolution really does outsmart us over and over, producing engineering marvels.", that's impressive. We have so such to learn from random, undirected processes. Maybe we should live our lives like that since it works so well in nature.(Irony even more in evidence than Where's)

"We have so such to learn from random, undirected processes. Maybe we should live our lives like that since it works so well in nature."

Oh, but we already have. Depending on your job/network, you could already be reaping the befits of evolutionary/genetic algorithms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm#Applications

BTW, again, the random in the process is in respect to that which creates genetic diversity. Natural Selection (over time, etc.) is the filter that produces the exquisite results you mistake for design.

You do not understand evolution if you think it is mere happenstance. It is not mere happenstance.

I suspect the fallacy arises from the fact that random mutation is mere happenstance. But evolution is random mutation WITH NATURAL SELECTION - which filters out the advantageous muations from the disadvantageous ones. Thus, the process of evolution is a series of improvements and can produce some spectacular results.

To refer to evolution as mere happenstance is to grossly misrepresent it. And if you truly believe it then you don't understand it.

Ive read about proof of natural selection within a species, do you have any examples or natural selection at work creating a new species from an old one? Proof, mind you, not assumption.... If so, give me a link so I can examine it.

And Robert, by living our lives,I mean everyday decisions. Can you(or anyone else) design an algorithm that we can use to make ALL our day to day decisions for us that, to quote Ritchie,"filters out the advantageous muations from the disadvantageous ones."? (Replace mutations with decisions.) And, supposing someone could write such a program, would people live by it? I doubt it, and yet by the argument for natural selection it would seem to be the best possible course.

Ritchie can you define how natural selection defines advantageous muations and disadvantageous mutation?

You are right to ask me to clarify those terms, since, of course, they are relative and subjective.

It is not as if, when a new generation is born, someone deliberately assesses the indiviuals and then deliberately selects those with a particular mutation - that would be artificial selection.

But all living creatures are locked in a struggle for survival and reproduction - for food, resources, rights to mate, etc.

An advantageous mutation is simply a mutation which helps the individual in the struggle. A disadvantageous one is one that hinders them.

For example, in a species reliant on camouflage for safety, a conspicuous coat would be a disadvantage. It would be more obvious to predators, and therefore more likely to get eaten. But a coat that was a better match for the surrounding environment would boost the individual's chances of surviving to reproduce. Therefore those genes are more likely to get passed on.

What specifically is considered advantageous varies, not just from species to species, but even within a species. So perhaps we should be careful when using such a word. Nevertheless, in this case, I meant it as synonymous with 'advantageous for their chances of survival and reproduction' - as, I believe, it is generally meant.

Can you(or anyone else) design an algorithm that we can use to make ALL our day to day decisions for us that, to quote Ritchie,"filters out the advantageous muations from the disadvantageous ones."? (Replace mutations with decisions.) And, supposing someone could write such a program, would people live by it? I doubt it, and yet by the argument for natural selection it would seem to be the best possible course.

What a curious concept. An algorithm for filtering out good ideas from bad ones?

I'm not sure why you would imagine anyone would be able to come up with such a thing, but you are clearly equating it with natural selection.

When it comes to natural selection, a disadvantageous mutation simply means you will probably die.

Consider a population of animals who depend on camouflage for their safety and survival. Among a group there will inevitably be variety in virtually all physical features - some slightly bigger, some slightly smaller, some slightly slimmer, some slightly fatter, etc. All natural selection means in this case is that the more conspicuous individuals will be the ones least likely to survive, while the ones best camouflaged will be the ones most likely to survive - and thus, reproduce their genes.

The concept of an algorithm to filter good ideas from bad is a nonsensical one. How does that compare in practical terms to natural selcetion? How would it work? How do you define good and bad ideas?

Not ideas...choices. In any given situation there are several choices that can be made, all with varying degrees of success or failure. It's obvious that there will always be one choice with a better outcome(or not as bad), even if by a slim margin. As natural selection seems to be explained as a filter for all the advantageous mutations to be accepted and continued and the disadvantageous ones to be left by the wayside with the end result being higher life forms then this algorithm would result in a person having a greater measure of success than making the decisions on his own or randomly. Of course, from the beginning of a persons making conscious decisions until his last breath, the amount of possible outcomes is exponentially prohibitive, but no less so than natural selection creating hundreds of thousands of unique life forms either. Do I have numbers to support that? No. But I'm also sure noone can define for me the number of mutations that would have been necessary for life to exist as we know it AND science never will have that answer, it is unknowable.

"When it comes to natural selection, a disadvantageous mutation simply means you will probably die."

When you have a large pool of candidates to work with I'm sure losing a few is no issue. What about waaaay back when when there were few.... because noone can argue life started with 1-2 organisms and continued on from there.Are there not more disadvantageous mutations than advantageous ones? Is there a ratio? If there is I don't know it.

In any given situation there are several choices that can be made, all with varying degrees of success or failure. It's obvious that there will always be one choice with a better outcome(or not as bad), even if by a slim margin.

Ummm, okay. But what exactly constitutes a good or bad idea? There are so many variables. Is making a bet a good idea? The odds of it paying off are probably low, so by that logic, you could answer 'no'. Then again, if you win, it was definitely a good idea.

Again, I find this concept of a filter for ideas very abstract and bizarre. I suppose it is workble if you take it to the extreme - a brain that regularly has 'bad' ideas, perhaps because it hallucinates due to dementia, or for some other reason percieves the world inaccurately will be at a survival disadvantage, so yes, will generally be selected against by natural selection. Your average human being has many, many ideas in their lifetime, some good, some bad. But what makes them good or bad is so variable, so reliant on outside influences or perspective, that a filter for seperating good ideas from bad is just odd. And if you have a bad idea, you just cut your losses and move on. You are not stuck with your bad ideas like you are with bad physical features.

This is not necessarily the case with mutations. For a species that relies on speed, a mutation which hampers an individual's legs will be a disadvantage. For a species that relies on keen eyesight, a mutation that hinders an individual's sight is a disadvantage. Not like a bad idea which they can brush off and foget about, but a permanent dibilitation which will sooner or later inevitably spell their doom.

What about waaaay back when when there were few.... because noone can argue life started with 1-2 organisms and continued on from there.

Right from the off, when two or more organisms depend on the same resources, we have competition, and as long as organisms compete for them, there will be winners and losers - those who feed and those who starve, those who survive to reproduce, and those who die. In other words, a selection pressure to survive.

Are there not more disadvantageous mutations than advantageous ones?

Oh yes! Absolutely. I don't know the ratio either (or if anyone does), but it just stands to reason. There are many, many, many more ways for a mutation to hinder its host than to help it. This is particularly true in more complex creatures where longer lengths of the genetic code are taken up with complex features - a mutation on these codes will probably render the whole feature useless. There are many more possible mutations along the eye code that will make you blind than will improve your sight, for example.

But so what? In a species that relies on keen sight, as long as blind individuals are constantly weeded out and generally poor eyesight is constantly selected against, the trend will inevitably be towards better eyesight.

"What specifically is considered advantageous varies, not just from species to species, but even within a species. So perhaps we should be careful when using such a word. Nevertheless, in this case, I meant it as synonymous with 'advantageous for their chances of survival and reproduction' - as, I believe, it is generally meant."

But if mutation is ramdom, and this is the screening, you have to get a ramdom distribution of traits starting in "good enough" for survival, and "excellence" with high population in the best compromise between both and survival. Instead you have many traits, like electron transport proteins, and I bet spider silk are homogeneus and close to the optimun.

Once again, let me clarify. Forget IDEAS, I am speaking about decisions and choices we make. An idea remains in our mind until acted upon, which may be never, however some choices once made are irrevocable. For example, the light turns yellow and I have to make the choice to slow down and stop or try to make it. That consequences of that choice are unchangeable, whether it is nothing since I make it, or I kill a family because I hit them in the intersection. An algorithm that constantly makes the choice with the greater chance of a successful outcome is what I am describing. I agree it is unworkable, but to me so is the concept of natural selection accounting for all the variability of life we see around us and being, obviously, so successful at doing it.

When it comes to the ratio, let’s say 500 to 1, disadvantageous to advantageous. Is that fair? Once again, I don’t know the ratio, it is probably worse than that, but anyway. Assuming we have one organism, it has a 1 in 500 chance of mutating for the better or else die. In this organism’s case the mutation needs to make it survive better, not speed, eyesight, hearing or whatever, simple survival but maybe a little more successful in doing it. If it fails to mutate properly it dies and the whole scenario needs to restart. I can’t see mutations being possible at this stage without the overwhelming amount of disadvantageous ones forcing a wholesale restart of life. Maybe if you had thousands or millions for natural selection to work on….but not 1, 2 or even a dozen.

I see the distinction between ideas and decisions, but I fail to grasp the significance of it in this case. Surely my points are still valid? There are many, many outside factors which differentiate a good decision from a bad one. And decisions are usually as fleeting as ideas, not fixed like physical features.

A good decision is, I suppose based on an accurate assessment of the relevant components of a given situation and the application of logic. But beyond that, good consequences do not necessarily follow from good decisions.

It is simply not a comparative metaphor for evolution. A good mutation is one that helps a creature survive to reproduce. In other words, a greater chance of surviving and reproducing is a direct consequence of a good mutation. And your disbelief that this could account for the variety of life is simply an argument from incredulity.

When it comes to the ratio, let’s say 500 to 1, disadvantageous to advantageous. Is that fair?

No idea. But I'm happy to go with it for the purposes of a thought experiment.

Assuming we have one organism, it has a 1 in 500 chance of mutating for the better or else die. In this organism’s case the mutation needs to make it survive better, not speed, eyesight, hearing or whatever, simple survival but maybe a little more successful in doing it. If it fails to mutate properly it dies and the whole scenario needs to restart.

Ummm, no. Why would our organism die if it did not mutate? That's bizarre.

Imagine our little self-replicating blob in a shallow pool. It reproduces and eventually there are lots of little blobs all blobbily blobbing around. If they were absolutely no mutations, the species as a whole would not necessarily die - it just would not change. Old blobs would reproduce, die and be replaced with identical young blobs who do the same.

Without mutation you just have an endless production line of identical blobs reproducing. Yes, they would compete with each other for limited resources, but if every blob was identical, there would be precious little but blind luck to separate success from failure.

Now let's introduce the possibility of mutations. One little blog is born with a mutation - something a little different about it. Now, according to our odds, there is a 1 in 500 chance that the mutation will hinder its ability to compete with its fellows, so it will probably die and its mutation will probably not get passed on. But eventually (after about 500 such mutants, apparently) there will be a blob born with an advantageous mutation. Probably not something big, but just something functional which gives it a survival/reproductive advantage. This particular blob's chances of surviving and reproducing have just gone up. So it probably will reproduce. There are now several blobs with the mutation, since the parent mutant probably passed its mutation on. Now it's just exponetial. There are blobs with the mutation, and blobs without. The blobs with the mutation are better at surviving to reproduce, so eventually they will out-compete others and take over the pool. The pool is now filled entirely with blobs with the mutation, and we are back to square one. Every blog is identical again. So we wait around for another 500 mutants to be born until eventually one is born with a second advantageous muation, and so on...

It is never the case that if an blob does not mutate it dies. A pool full of identical, mutationless blobs will not go extinct, they just won't change. A blob with a bad mutation will simply be out-competed by blobs without the disadvantage. While a mutationless blob will be out-competed by ones with a good mutation.

"Now let's introduce the possibility of mutations. One little **blob** is born with a mutation - something a little different about it. Now, according to our odds, there is a 1 in 500 chance that the mutation will **help** its ability to compete with its fellows, so it will probably die..."

Incredulity? Maybe. However it still is not enough to convince me(and honestly never will). I have no doubt that natural selection occurs and that it helps species adapt to their environment. Do you have any examples of it actually creating new species? Not bacteria or microorganisms but something substantial, such as a bird or mammal? If you have a link for it let me know.

I watched it but what I see is salamaders becoming a different kind of salamander and same with the gulls. You have intermediary species...so what? They are still the same kind of animal. At the end of the video it mentions that for humans and chimpanzees(or some other ape) that "The intermediates happen to be dead". That is assuming that they ever existed.

what I see is salamaders becoming a different kind of salamander and same with the gulls. You have intermediary species...so what? They are still the same kind of animal.

The word that really jumps out at me here is 'kind'. What is a 'kind' of animal? That is not a biological term.

What the salamanders show us is two distinct species of salamanders seperated by a continuous chain of intermediates. We know this can happen. That's the point of the video. But now that the two salamander species are not interbreeding, then given time and assuming either or both don't go extinct, the genetic codes of each will continue to drift apart. If two samples of the same species will eventually become different species, than what is to stop them becoming different genera (genuses? geni? genera?)? And then different families, orders and kingdoms? The only missing component here is time. The principles of genetic drift are precisely the same.

At the end of the video it mentions that for humans and chimpanzees(or some other ape) that "The intermediates happen to be dead". That is assuming that they ever existed.

What is your opinion on early hominid discoveries? Homo erectus? Neanderthal? Homo Heidelbergensis? Homo Rhodesiensis? Australopithecus Afarensis? Australopithecus Africanus? These are not idle speculations. We have evidence for all of these and more.

Kind? They are both salamaders are they not? There is no guarantee that with enought time they would become anything but a salamander. Spots, tail length, color, etc may all change but it would still be a salamander.

Of course many discoveries have been made of the above mentioned fossils. They may be hominids, but where is conclusive proof they are the ancestors of modern man?

Neanderthals http://live.psu.edu/story/46245quote"As Miller explained, tens of thousands of years ago modern humans may have co-existed with Neanderthals, who were not Homo sapiens like us, but a different species, Homo neanderthalensis."

Homo Heidelbergensis http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_1.htm

Quote "Note: There is not a general agreement at this time as to how Homo heidelbergensis fossils should be classified. Some paleoanthropologists prefer to classify the more recent ones as archaic humans or archaic Homo Sapiens. Likewise, some of the earliest Homo heidelbergensis are classified as Homo antecessor or even late transitional Homo erectus."

Kind? They are both salamaders are they not? There is no guarantee that with enought time they would become anything but a salamander. Spots, tail length, color, etc may all change but it would still be a salamander.

So 'kind' does not mean 'species' then? You accept that one species may give rise to several? You need to be specific on these points.

And what exactly is this quality that makes a salamander a salamander? That is just a convenient grouping name for a genus. Perhaps you are hung up on the point that, colouring aside, the salamanders share pretty much the same features (as far as I could tell). But let's imagine the 'brown ones' go on to develop short tails, a preference for living on land, and give rise to several other species with these characteristics. The 'blotchy' ones meanwhile, extend their tails, develop a preference for aquatic life, and give rise to several species with these characteristics. Would we not eventually classify the descendants of these two species as seperate genera - as different 'kinds'?

Of course many discoveries have been made of the above mentioned fossils. They may be hominids, but where is conclusive proof they are the ancestors of modern man?

Science does not deal in conclusive proof. Only in evidence. There is not conclusive proof for anything, and it is unreasonable and unscientific to demand it.

However, there is evidence - lots of it - and it all points to humans being the descendants of these creatures. The gradual progression of ape-to-human features shows clear development: the australopithecines are found between 4 and 2.5 million years old, homo habilis between 2.5 and 1.5, and homo erectus between 2 and 0.5 million years old, with many other species dotted around the place.

Imagine a very long wall that is painted red at one end and yellow at the other. Between the two ends, the colours very slowly blend into each other through the different shades of orange. Now imagine the wall is knocked down with only the very ends remaining - the extremes of red and yellow. The bricks that connected them are removed or hidden.

Finding a fossil is like finding one of those bricks. It will be a certain shade of orange. As more and more bricks are uncovered, slowly it will become clear that the two wall ends were probably connected. But some people don't want to accept that. They want to claim that any brick found is either red or yellow, and that the red and yellow ends were never joined. We might expect such people, when faced with each newly discovered brick, to be unable to agree on whether any given brick is red or yellow.

Now check out this table:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

Creationists insist that each find is either wholly human or wholly ape. And yet they seem totally unable to agree which fall into which category. Indeed, there is wild discrepancy. This is exactly what we should expect if the fossils really do represent a genuine gradation.

Where do YOU draw the line? Which ones are ape and which are human? Where does red stop and yellow begin? Wherever you choose to draw it, you would have to concede that the line is pressed by a very human-like ape on one side and a very ape-like human on the other.

I am no scientific expert but to assume they are human ancestors to me takes a greater leap of faith than believing in a God.

I find such a claim to be totally nonsensical. For one thing, I see no reason at all to refute the idea that humans are descended from apes. I will grant that the evidence is not ABSOLUTE proof - but then it never will be. You are just taking the stance of, 'You can't prove your idea absolutely, therefore I can still dismiss it if I want.'

Secondly, I see no reason at all to believe in a God. Such a thing requires a tremendous leap of faith. Replace the word 'God' in the passage I've quoted with 'unicorn' or 'fairy'. We have no more reason to believe in God that we do a fairy - a proposition which surely takes a FAR greater leap of faith than a scientific proposal for which we have abundant evidence?

Fil: They may be hominids, but where is conclusive proof they are the ancestors of modern man?

They're generally close relatives. You have to look at the overall pattern. We can rarely know, looking at a fossil (or your grandfather's bones, for that matter), whether it is a direct ancestor or not. But we do have clear evidence of branching descent.

Fil: "As Miller explained, tens of thousands of years ago modern humans may have co-existed with Neanderthals, who were not Homo sapiens like us, but a different species, Homo neanderthalensis. "

Funny that. Strong evidence of branching descent.

Fil: "Note: There is not a general agreement at this time as to how Homo heidelbergensis fossils should be classified."

They are so close to humans, that even experts aren't sure if they are different species or not. That's what we expect from an evolutionary process!

Please tell me they aren't basing all their reconstructions on skeletons that incomplete?

Actually, they are quite complete. There are several excellent specimens, including nearly a complete skull. Don't forget that land vertebrates are bilaterally symmetrical, so mirror each known part. Also, keep in mind that we can make determinations from very limited evidence, such as a single jaw can tell us that an organism had mammary glands and took care of its young.

Fil: I am no scientific expert but to assume they are human ancestors to me takes a greater leap of faith than believing in a God.

You have to look at the entirety of the evidence, which strongly supports branching descent.

Ritchie:Secondly, I see no reason at all to believe in a God. Such a thing requires a tremendous leap of faith. Replace the word 'God' in the passage I've quoted with 'unicorn' or 'fairy'. We have no more reason to believe in God that we do a fairy - a proposition which surely takes a FAR greater leap of faith than a scientific proposal for which we have abundant evidence?

I find the evidence for evolution being responsible for every living thing insufficient. You find the evidence for God insufficient. So be it.

I find the evidence for evolution being responsible for every living thing insufficient. You find the evidence for God insufficient. So be it.

The difference of course is that there simply is no evidence for God. None. Meanwhile, you are simply choosing to ignore a truly vast store of empirical evidence corroborating evolution - a store so vast that leading scientific minds consider the theory to be simply a fact. Our two positions are not equal at all.

Or perhaps you just wanted to draw our exchange on this thread to a conclusion?

I absolutely assure you, if you have ANY actual, solid, tangible, empirical evidence for a greater being IN THE SLIGHTEST, and I really do mean a SINGLE scrap which stands up to critical scrutiny, then a lifetime of fame and riches awaits you!

If there was evidence, there would be no need for faith. Faith is belief in the absense of evidence.

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/